5 ms·

After a few years in the digital photography, what I miss the most is the quality of my B&W photo done with my second-hand Nikon F5! I'm thinking of using that

After a few years in the digital photography, what I miss the most is the quality of my B&W photo done with my second-hand Nikon F5! I'm thinking of using that again but I fear the lack of film in shops and the lack of a good labo to develop my pictures...

Finnucane 7y ago
processing b&w film at home doesn't require a lot of space. A tank and a dark box to load it are all you need. And it's _way_ cheaper than a lab.
- floren 7y ago
  And if you get into stand development, you're only using 5mL of Rodinal per roll... and instead of agitation every 30 seconds for 10 minutes, you just agitate when you add the developer and let it sit for an hour, maybe agitating once halfway through.
  - rylax 7y ago
    +1 what all above said. I myself self develop b/w and sometimes even C41 which is much easier than everyone talks/write about. The only problem with self-development imho is if you want to digitalize it. I have an Epson V500 scanner which is fine for b/w but almost useless for color. Labs tend to have much better scanners and experience in removing the color layers etc.
    - floren 7y ago
      Yeah, I have a V550 and it's a pain to use. Slow to load, slow to scan, and dust is incredibly apparent. Then you have to go through and process the negatives. I honestly prefer wet printing with the enlarger; once you've got the baths set up, it's quicker per image than scanning & processing!
      - rylax 7y ago
        ... and much more rewarding to say at least!
      - Finnucane 7y ago
        I've got a V750 and these days I can get a better scan with my Nikon D850 and a good macro lens. I don't know if I'd say hand-printing is faster, but I guess it depends on how fussy you are about prints. I mean, you've got to do your test prints, your 'straight' print, then figure out your dodging and burning, though once you've got a good print then making copies is fairly straightforward. But oh man, paper is expensive these days.
  - Finnucane 7y ago
    Rodinal is always worth keeping around because it lasts practically forever, which makes it great for occasional use.
klodolph 7y ago
Most decent size cities will still have labs, and there’s always the option to develop by mail. If you still have the F5 and want to do B&W, pick up a roll of Ilford SFX. It’s easier to find a lab that processes C-41 chemistry than anything else, and it’s easier to scan than traditional B&W.
- melicerte 7y ago
  I still have it ! Thanks for the advice on the ilford SFX[1] [1] https://filmtypes.com/films/ilford-sfx-200 https://filmtypes.com/films/ilford-sfx-200
  - klodolph 7y ago
    Whoops: I was wrong! Ilford XP2 super is the one I meant! SFX is B&W process, XP2 super is C-41.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  In what way is it easier to scan? Every scanner has settings for both black and white and color neg. Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41 introduces a host of issues into post-processing.
  - klodolph 7y ago
    C-41 is easier to scan because you can use IR cleaning with C-41. This technique is impossible with traditional B&W film. > Every scanner has settings for both black and white and color neg. The fact that your scanner “has a setting” just means that people want to use the scanner for this purpose. It does not inform you which alternative you should choose. > Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41 introduces a host of issues into post-processing. I can't imagine even one issue in post-processing. Once you scan it the film, you get a monochrome image. With C-41, the post-processing is easier because you don't have to do as much manual cleanup (due to IR cleaning, above). Speaking as someone who has an entire shelf dedicated to binders of film—B&W is much worse to scan than C-41. I personally shoot mostly traditional B&W but I recognize that my use case is different from most.

Finnucane 7y ago

processing b&w film at home doesn't require a lot of space. A tank and a dark box to load it are all you need. And it's _way_ cheaper than a lab.

floren 7y ago
And if you get into stand development, you're only using 5mL of Rodinal per roll... and instead of agitation every 30 seconds for 10 minutes, you just agitate when you add the developer and let it sit for an hour, maybe agitating once halfway through.
- rylax 7y ago
  +1 what all above said. I myself self develop b/w and sometimes even C41 which is much easier than everyone talks/write about. The only problem with self-development imho is if you want to digitalize it. I have an Epson V500 scanner which is fine for b/w but almost useless for color. Labs tend to have much better scanners and experience in removing the color layers etc.
  - floren 7y ago
    Yeah, I have a V550 and it's a pain to use. Slow to load, slow to scan, and dust is incredibly apparent. Then you have to go through and process the negatives. I honestly prefer wet printing with the enlarger; once you've got the baths set up, it's quicker per image than scanning & processing!
    - rylax 7y ago
      ... and much more rewarding to say at least!
    - Finnucane 7y ago
      I've got a V750 and these days I can get a better scan with my Nikon D850 and a good macro lens. I don't know if I'd say hand-printing is faster, but I guess it depends on how fussy you are about prints. I mean, you've got to do your test prints, your 'straight' print, then figure out your dodging and burning, though once you've got a good print then making copies is fairly straightforward. But oh man, paper is expensive these days.
- Finnucane 7y ago
  Rodinal is always worth keeping around because it lasts practically forever, which makes it great for occasional use.

klodolph 7y ago

Most decent size cities will still have labs, and there’s always the option to develop by mail. If you still have the F5 and want to do B&W, pick up a roll of Ilford SFX. It’s easier to find a lab that processes C-41 chemistry than anything else, and it’s easier to scan than traditional B&W.

melicerte 7y ago
I still have it ! Thanks for the advice on the ilford SFX[1] [1] https://filmtypes.com/films/ilford-sfx-200 https://filmtypes.com/films/ilford-sfx-200
- klodolph 7y ago
  Whoops: I was wrong! Ilford XP2 super is the one I meant! SFX is B&W process, XP2 super is C-41.
staticautomatic 7y ago
In what way is it easier to scan? Every scanner has settings for both black and white and color neg. Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41 introduces a host of issues into post-processing.
- klodolph 7y ago
  C-41 is easier to scan because you can use IR cleaning with C-41. This technique is impossible with traditional B&W film. > Every scanner has settings for both black and white and color neg. The fact that your scanner “has a setting” just means that people want to use the scanner for this purpose. It does not inform you which alternative you should choose. > Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41 introduces a host of issues into post-processing. I can't imagine even one issue in post-processing. Once you scan it the film, you get a monochrome image. With C-41, the post-processing is easier because you don't have to do as much manual cleanup (due to IR cleaning, above). Speaking as someone who has an entire shelf dedicated to binders of film—B&W is much worse to scan than C-41. I personally shoot mostly traditional B&W but I recognize that my use case is different from most.